mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it might be interesting to look at the suttas where the personalities of Arahants is discussed, which is presumably relevant to this playing out of old kamma. Unfortunately, I don't have any references handy.

By my understanding of vipaka it wouldn't be relevant,

Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it might be interesting to look at the suttas where the personalities of Arahants is discussed, which is presumably relevant to this playing out of old kamma. Unfortunately, I don't have any references handy.

By my understanding of vipaka it wouldn't be relevant,

Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.

No, that's not what I'm saying, though I sense that's what you've been objecting to.

tiltbillings wrote:Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about

tiltbillings wrote:Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.

No, that's not what I'm saying, though I sense that's what you've been objecting to.

Then, briefly, in clear, concise English, what are you saying about a living arahant?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:Then, briefly, in clear, concise English, what are you saying about a living arahant?

(I hope you don't mind if I cheat and use a little Pali...)

From the cessation of ignorance (i.e. attainment of arahantship) comes the cessation of sankharas. From the cessation of sankharas comes the cessation of vipaka.

That is all I'm saying about a living arahant.

Metta,Retro.

And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.

tiltbillings wrote:And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.

Again, not what I'm suggesting.

I'm not attempting to measure the arahant in any way, and I suppose my unwillingness to speculative in positive terms on the experience of an arahant would make it difficult to understand my position if you are expecting to find within it declarations on whether certain things "exist" for the arahant.

What wise man here would seek to defineA measureless one by taking his measure?He who would measure a measureless oneMust be, I think, an obstructed worldling.

I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?

It was more bemusement that after 13 pages of being the most active participant in the discussion, and having not once made such a statement, you suggest that I had. Hence, I challenged you to provide an example.

I gathered you were implying that the khandhas were completely delusional. It still seems to me that that is your implication but I can't find a definitive statement on that. However there is this on the other thread: p://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7947#p125367

retrofuturist wrote:Kamma is based on the fundamental misperception that there is a person/agent/soul who acts, and a person/agent/soul who experiences the fruition of those actions. Once this misperception is eradicated through the attainment of arahantship, someone is beyond the net of kamma, having seen through that which sustains it. Therefore, kamma does not operate outside of the person/agent/soul and therefore the attack from the junkie was their 'bad kamma' (i.e. unwholesome volitional activity) and nothing to do with your kamma. The only role your kamma and vipaka (mental resultant) had in the piece was that you regard what happened as something that happened to "you" and "you" suffer to that extent.

Here you seem to be insisting that we must regard kamma in a certain way. As an illusion.

Well, maybe it is, but I think that insisting that it is would be going too far.

What I find problematical in these threads is your insistence that anyone who disagree with your view is necessarily taking a realist position, and you put a lot of effort painting any disagreement as "realist" and then arguing against that position. Whereas I think that Tilt and I would rather talk about the phenomenology of experience, and how it may be analysed.

mikenz66 wrote:Here you seem to be insisting that we must regard kamma in a certain way. As an illusion.

Well, maybe it is, but I think that insisting that it is would be going too far.

I'm not sure how I feel about the word "illusion" in this context on account of the fact one might take it to be the opposite of "existing" and thereby equate "illusion" with "non-existence"... because on the contrary, it's avijja and sankharas themselves which are the reason for false perceptions of existence and non-existence. (Note, no statement there affirming or denying existence).

mikenz66 wrote:What I find problematical in these threads is your insistence that anyone who disagree with your view is necessarily taking a realist position, and you put a lot of effort painting any disagreement as "realist" and then arguing against that position.

If there is any assertion that things "exist" made that ignores the fact experienced phenomenon (dhammas) only come into being dependent upon consciousness/cognition of them then I believe it is "realist".

A crucial core question is: What is actually an experienced phenomenon? See the equally vital answer here! If mind is directly involved in creating the very "thing" or "state" it perceives, as an active participatory observer,then there cannot ever be any "objective observation" or "world out-there",which is independent of the mind that intends, selects, and manifests it...!It entails that 'mind' is inseparable from 'matter'. They are Siamese-Twins!In early Buddhism, the Buddha coined this subtle yet dual Unity: Nama-Rupa! Name-&-Form or Naming-&-Forming, since these are dynamic processes, that in mutual dependence creates each other like 2 creepers, that only can growup, if growing up twisted & rotated around the other's stem like a DNA-helix.

Scroll a little further down for his delightfully cheeky...

If you feel slightly weird or dizzy after reading this, you are right on track! Hihihi Keep on observing, studying, reflecting. Never give up Examination!It is not "reality" that seems to be evaporating under your feet, but ratherthe unseen, hidden, habitual and utterly false assumptions you had about it!

(Those bolded sentences might be a useful reminder to those who establish themselves in vipassana practice to ensure their practice leads to vipassana)

By way of comparison, here's definitions of "realism"....

4. philosophy theory that things exist objectively: the theory that things such as universals, moral facts, and theoretical scientific entities exist independently of people's thoughts and perceptions5. philosophy theory of objectively existing world: the theory that there is an objectively existing world, not dependent on our minds, and that people are able to understand aspects of that world through perceptionSource: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617 ... alism.html

mikenz66 wrote:Whereas I think that Tilt and I would rather talk about the phenomenology of experience, and how it may be analysed.

I think that's what we'd all like to be talking about - you just don't see the connection between what I'm saying and that. So be it.

mikenz66 wrote:Since we only know what we experience, I don't see how it is possible to make definitive statements about some external world of clods, or whatever, only our experience of clods.

Where is the definitive statement? Again, I think you're just inferring meaning about existence and non-existence into what I say on account of the absence of any categorical positive assertions about these things.

mikenz66 wrote:Anyway, as you and Tilt say, we are hardly likely to agree, after dozens of similar threads...

retrofuturist wrote:I think that's what we'd all like to be talking about - you just don't see the connection between what I'm saying and that. So be it.

That basically sums it up. I don't really understand what you're trying to do. Sorry. I've attempted many, many, times to explain how you engage in what seems to me be to be a kind of negative ontology. Obviously my explanations are not very good.

retrofuturist wrote:If there is any assertion that things "exist" made that ignores the fact experienced phenomenon (dhammas) only come into being dependent upon consciousness/cognition of them then I believe it is "realist".

Likewise, any asserting that "things don't exist" also has serious problems. Since I have not asserted that "things exist", only that it would be a mistake to assert that "things don't exist", I agree with your criticism of realism.

tiltbillings wrote:And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.

Again, not what I'm suggesting.

I'm not attempting to measure the arahant in any way, and I suppose my unwillingness to speculative in positive terms on the experience of an arahant would make it difficult to understand my position if you are expecting to find within it declarations on whether certain things "exist" for the arahant.

What wise man here would seek to defineA measureless one by taking his measure?He who would measure a measureless oneMust be, I think, an obstructed worldling.

Been there, done that. It is not a matter of measuring the arahant, and "exists" is a non-starter, as has been pointed out.

I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?

Since the living arahant's khandhas still function and the arahant is no longer measured in those terms, what stops is the grasping after the khandhas, the pushing away of the khandhas, and the misaphrehension of the khandhas in terms of being and non-being. It is the khandhas identified in terms of being/non-being, of grasping after which has ceased. Just as khandhas are a way of talking about the flow experience, cessation is also a way of talking about the flow of experience.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

retrofuturist wrote:I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?

Since the living arahant's khandhas still function and the arahant is no longer measured in those terms, what stops is the grasping after the khandhas, the pushing away of the khandhas, and the misaphrehension of the khandhas in terms of being and non-being. It is the khandhas identified in terms of being/non-being, of grasping after which has ceased. Just as khandhas are a way of talking about the flow experience, cessation is also a way of talking about the flow of experience.

That would account adequately for everything from the cessation of tanha onwards, but what about the cessation mode up to that point... what does that mean to you?

And if cessation of tanha occurs, surely this is dependent upon the cessation of the earlier nidanas (i.e. sankhara, vinnana, nama-rupa, salayatana, phassa, vedana). To wit, what does the cessation of the pre-tanha nidanas mean to you? What is "going on" there?

Asking this about the arahant might "seem" theoretical and irrelevant, but I maintain it is relevant, because whatever is ceasing or ceased for the arahant is precisely what is arising for us.

retrofuturist wrote:I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?

Since the living arahant's khandhas still function and the arahant is no longer measured in those terms, what stops is the grasping after the khandhas, the pushing away of the khandhas, and the misaphrehension of the khandhas in terms of being and non-being. It is the khandhas identified in terms of being/non-being, of grasping after which has ceased. Just as khandhas are a way of talking about the flow experience, cessation is also a way of talking about the flow of experience.

That would account adequately for everything from the cessation of tanha onwards, but what about the cessation mode up to that point... what does that mean to you?

Do these things literally cease, no longer to function in the living arahant?

These things cease, I would say, in terms of being defining characteristics for the consciousness/awareness. As consciousness arises it no longer measures itself in those terms, being free of the limitations of having to define itself in terms of grasping after (greed), pushing away (hatred), and misapphrehension of things as they are in terms of self (delusion). While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out, there is no further kamma put together, there is no further impetus grasping after the next moment or the next life, impelling one forward.

"When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place." SN 1.1

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

mikenz66 wrote:That's fine. But, as I've said repeatedly, from my perspective much of your labelling is actually mislabelling...

Maybe a statement is realist, and I perceive it as such.Maybe a statement is realist, and I do not perceive it as such.Maybe a statement is non-realist, and I perceive it as such.Maybe a statement is non-realist, and I do not perceive it as such.

These are all possible.

mikenz66 wrote:...and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

If it gives the opportunity to clarify the statement or intention, and avoid the circumstances I've coloured in red, then I think it's actually useful to the conversation, in terms of gaining a better appreciation of what the other person is meaning to say.

Hmmm... well, if I'm to take that as a direct answer to my question about what ceases for the arahant, you're saying that past-life karma formations cease (what about those of this life?). No, it seems you've just copied some text here (not even in cessation mode) rather than contemplate the question put forward.

tiltbillings wrote:Does consciousness cease, literally with the cessation of ignorance in the living arahant?

Do these things literally cease, no longer to function in the living arahant?

Is it possible to reframe your question using a term other than "function", that pertains directly to experience? In the meantime, I'll answer as best as I can...

Yes, kāyasankhāro, vacīsankhāro and cittasankhāro all cease for the arahant... but that is not to say that what you seem to mean by them as physiological "functions" ceases. On matters of physiology I do not wish to speculate because physiology (not being loka) is not dependent upon avijja.

(I have no doubt that will seem unnecessarily oblique, but it is what it is... "realism" as defined earlier included "objectively existing world... not dependent on our minds", and to me, "physiological functions" falls into that category, hence why I asked if you could reframe your question).

tiltbillings wrote:These things cease, I would say, in terms of being defining characteristics for the consciousness/awareness. As consciousness arises it no longer measures itself in those terms, being free of the limitations of having to define itself in terms of grasping after (greed), pushing away (hatred), and misapphrehension of things as they are in terms of self (delusion).

Agreed.

tiltbillings wrote:While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out

Disagree, but already done to death. I believe our point of difference lies in different understandings of the English word "conditioning" and the Pali word "sankhara" as they pertain to experience.

tiltbillings wrote:there is no further kamma put together, there is no further impetus grasping after the next moment or the next life, impelling one forward.

"When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place." SN 1.1

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,Hmmm... well, if I'm to take that as a direct answer to my question about what ceases for the arahant, you're saying that past-life karma formations cease (what about those of this life?). No, it seems you've just copied some text here rather than contemplate the question put forward.

Are we going to play nice here? The only text I copied was the first 8 links of the paticasamuppada formula in the BUDDHIST DICTIONARY. Past life or present life, it is all the same.

tiltbillings wrote:Does consciousness cease, literally with the cessation of ignorance in the living arahant?

Do these things literally cease, no longer to function in the living arahant?

Is it possible to reframe your question using a term other than function, that pertains directly to experience? In the meantime, I'll answer as best as I can...

Do these things literally cease, no longer to operate in the living arahant?

Yes, kāyasankhāro, vacīsankhāro and cittasankhāro all cease for the arahant... but that is not to say that what you seem to mean by them as physiological "functions" ceases. On matters of physiology I do not wish to speculate because physiology (being outside loka) is not dependent upon avijja.

I am not worried about physiology. For you "cease" seems to mean obliterated. Probably not, given that a living arahant thinks, perceives, talks, remembers, etc. No need to kill off these functions, when simply no longer investing in thems as aspects of a self will do just fine.

(I have no doubt that will seem unnecessarily oblique, but it is what it is... "realism" as defined earlier included "objectively existing world... not dependent on our minds", and to me, "physiological functions" falls into that category, hence why I asked if you could reframe your question).

Let me quote what I have quoted here many times already:

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53

The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of bothphysicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).